There's one big difference between WIC,foodstamps Pell Grants, Student Loans, etc and every voucher program I've seen. Those programs are means tested, and the vouchers aren't. If vouchers were only going to be given to those who presently cannot afford private school,I might not be so sure tuitions would go up. However, if I'm currently paying my kids' $3700/yr tuition, and I get an $8000/year ( $4000/ per child,50% of my districts average cost of attendance, which is the last program proposed here} voucher,if the tuition goes up to $9000 or $10,000 I'll gladly pay the thousand or two. After all, I paid more before.And the schools know it.Most private schools (here at least) are not particularly concerned about increasing enrollment.The public schools lose money in two ways. One is the difference between the average per pupil cost, and the cost per average pupil. The other is those already in private schools, like my kids. If I get an $8000 voucher, the public school system loses $8000 to the voucher and doesn't save any costs, because my kids were never there.
Good point, Doreen. But how many private shchool students are there compared to public school students?
Another way to look at the situation you present is that you are currently unjustly enriching the public school by, in esssence, paying double tuition. IF you are the type that cares about “fairness” then vouchers would remedy this situation.
I live in an area that has a decent private school, but it is poor and so they have the typical problems of overcrowding, not enough books, etc. There is no way in hell I am going to send my kids there. Whic h means that me and my money are either going to move or go to a private school. If I didn’t have the money, I would be forced to send my kid to a substandard school, thus making it that much harder to succeed in today’s compettive environment.
I would definitely vote for vouchers if I didn’t have any options for my children’s schooling. Interestingly enough, the Catholic High School is right down the street from the public school. Talk about a difference between the students!
How many private schools students there are compared to public school students probably depends a lot on where you live. I live in NYC, and within a mile or so of my kids school, there are at least five other Catholic schools, with enrollments ranging from 250 to over a thousand students.That’s not a lot in comparison to the number of students in the public schools, but if they cut the budget in proportion to the number in the zone who get vouchers, the two public schools that serve the area of the school with a thousand students will lose at least a couple of million between them with no decrease in students.That will make a difference. You could theoretically give vouchers without cutting the public school budget, but there are only two ways - increase revenue (taxes) or cut something else.
The fairness of paying double depends on how you see government funding for schools. If you think your taxes are to pay for your child’s education, then it’s paying double. However, then the childless and those whose children are grown or not yet in school shouldn’t have to contribute at all. If you think, as I do, that the purpose of publicly funded education is to provide a benefit to society as a whole,then it seems less unfair. After all, if I choose to live in a gated community, I don’t get a rebate on the portion of my taxes that pay for the police,nor do I get a rebate if I don’t use the public library.
I’m sure there is a difference between the public and Catholic school students in your area.There is in mine, too.The question is how much of the difference is attributable to the school, and how much is a combination of the school’s selection and self-selection.I can’t imagine someone who doesn’t value education paying tuition. That means that all or nearly all of the parents who don’t care enough about education to help with homework(or make sure it’s done), or even to make sure the kids go to school will send their kids to public school. ( I am not saying all public school parents are like this, only that those who are won’t spend money on tuition). Private schools can expel troublemakers, and often do. I don’t know that private schools would do any better than the public schools if the private schools had to take all comers.
This is the point I was trying to make in my OP. I live in a rich suburban community which was on one of those B.S. “best schools in the country” lists in Newsweek a couple years back (it had something to do with the number of AP tests per student). Last year, my high school sent more kids to Harvard than it did to the state university. This year, we had a significantly higher acceptance rate at Harvard than several local private schools.
Why? A couple of reasons: first, we can afford to pay our teachers high salaries, which attracts some of the best. In essence, my school is a public “private” high school, in its standards and reputation. The student body is effectively selected by the wealth of parents. Most of the families in my town are wealthy, with two well-educated parents.
Does that fact make my school “better”? Or are we simply starting with more advantages at the beginning (parents who can afford to miss work to help with homework, supervise kids, etc.)? If public schools could select the most talented students, I’d wager that those students could compete against the private school students.
There seems to be a presumption that richer parents who send their kidsto private schools are more involved in their children’s education. Haveing gone to private school for 10 years and public school for two, I don’t think that this is necesarily a valid belief. Many families have professional moms and dads that work long hours and travel. Many wealthy families use private school as a surrogate parent. I knew a lot of kids whose parents spent little time with them. And their divorce rate is just as high as the rest of the population.
What private schools do, IMHO, is avoid all of the red tape of the government. They can enforce rules more strictly, mandate uniforms, create higher standards, expell students, and determine their own curriculum.
Trust me, there were plenty of idiots and n’er do wells. They just weren’t tolerated.
Well, this is sort of my point. Vouchers don’t guarantee that the kids who need the most help will get into private schools. Instead, you get an effect which amplifies the flight to the suburbs - not only are many people who can afford to do so moving out of the cities, the talented kids end up fleeing to private schools, leaving public schools with just the troubled kids. Test scores then go down, “proving” that public schools don’t work, and the vicious cycle continues.
Don’t you think that the money would be better spent in a comprehensive urban reclamation project, which gives the kids who need the most help an incentive to get it? If they refuse it, fine, but there’s no reason to abandon the kids who can’t pass the private school entry exams in first grade. Or is that too much socialism (that dreaded S-word!) for all of you?
This is true. So what? Should we base policy off of the lowest common denomenator?
**
I really doubt that would be the case. And even so public schools should be getting just as much money per student so they shouldn’t have a problem keeping up with the kids they do have.
**
What kind of urban reclamation project? And what about all those rural schools out there that dont’ really provide an education any better than inner city schools?
There are a few mistakes here. Panzerman compares the OVERALL costs per student to the cost of TUITION for a parochial school (out here a private, NON-religous elementary school runs 10-20K per year)- remember the Churches subsidize part of the costs, so tuition does NOT =cost. Next the OVERALL coats of education include an overall Statewide system, part of which regulates private schools.
But here is the BIG problem. Most “private” schools are RELIGOUS schools. The kids are brainwashed into the religion of the parents choice. True, many “break out” of that brainwashing, but some do not. If you suggested a “voucher” program, and it was only for NON-sectarian schools, it would have almost 0 support. Why should I pay taxes so YOUR kid can learn how to pray & read the Bible in your 'approved" way. No thanks. And will they learn important stuff like evolution, geology, and advanced Physics? Its a liitle had to understand modern geology,or astronomy, when you are being taught that the earth is only 6000 years old. See, the religous are not being forced to send their kids to public schools, they just have to pay for it. But with the voucher system, I will be FORCED to pay these folks so they can teach their kids the earth is 6000 years old. RIIIGHT!
And let me share with you a Mercury news item. There was a convention locally of Christian Homeschoolers, part of which was to support an upcoming voucher vote. They insisted that the Statue of Posiedon, which was in the classic Greek style, be “covered” as it was “obscene”- They put pants on him. And you want to give these folks $2000 of my tax money? No thanks.
Daniel Many, many religious schools are dedicated to classic liberal arts teaching. I and many of my friends went to “religious” schools where we learned evolution, biology and physics. When I switched to public school after 9th grade, I skipped an entire year and took all AP courses my senior year (which totally screwed up my sports career.) You are talking about the very fringe of religious schooling.
First of all you are assuming that only wealthier kids are smart enough to get good grades. Bad, bad form old sport. Second, ueban flight is not a universal phenomenon and is not solely caused by the school system. Crime, population density, rising costs and teh like are more likely to drive out those who have the means.
The alternative is to force those who do not have the means to move, or send their children to private school, to continue to attend what may be a sub-standard school. The poor have to stay at the crappy schools, and the rich get a choice. Hmmm, now that I think of it, maybe vouchers are achieving a socialist ideal by creating more equal opportunity.
**
you will have to clarify this. IT sounds to me like you are saying that pouring money into Urban areas will fix the problems. I have seen two cities “reclaim” blighted urban areas: Denver and Boston. Both were driven by market forces, especially Denver. A small condo in downtown Denver is more expensive than a house in teh burbs. Of course, now those complaining of urban flight are complaining that urban reclamation is obliterating affordable housing.
That is not what I said at all. What I said was that the talented kids (read: good test-takers) would take flight to the private schools if a voucher system took effect. By no means would those students necessarily be the wealthiest. I’ve seen idiotic rich kids and poorer kids who are geniuses.
But there seems to be a movement to discredit the idea of public education, much of which is based on the use of data from standardized tests. But why shouldn’t the private schools (who, after all, get to pick their students, vouchers or no vouchers) have better standardized test scores? Especially those private schools which use a standardized test to pick their students.
So, here’s what vouchers do, in the long run: they build up a system of schools that are funded, but not supervised by, the government. These schools perform exceptionally well (because of the quality of their students), thus causing politicans, eager to show support of “success”, to feed more money into the “successful” system, cutting funding from those who need it most.
On the other hand, am I likely, as a “successful” student (I can send you my SAT scores if you want them, but they’re poor measures of intelligence, anyway), to go to an underfunded school? No. I’m not that courageous, I admit. On the other hand, it won’t get any easier if we tempt the brightest to bolt by dangling the mythical excellence of private education in front of them.
End of rant. Who’s next on the soap box?
(PS - sorry, Kimstu, I’m a few years yet from being ready to run for office. But if you see a thread in MPSIMS in a few years that says, “Nilvedman’s running for Congress!” you can get your checkbook out.)
<<Panzerman compares the OVERALL costs per student to the cost of TUITION for a parochial school (out here a private, NON-religous elementary school runs 10-20K per year)- remember the Churches subsidize part of the costs, so tuition does NOT =cost.>>
You didn’t go to the link. The link also compares nonsectarian schools as well. The cost savings at the elementary level is substantial, no matter how you slice it.
And tuition DOES indeed equal cost, as far as the parent is concerned. If some other organization subsidizes it, the government is in effect getting a freebie. Heck, I’d take it!
<<But here is the BIG problem. Most “private” schools are RELIGOUS schools. The kids are brainwashed into the religion of the parents choice. True, many “break out” of that brainwashing, but some do not.>>
That’s an amazingly condescending statement. Most parents don’t feel that bringing their child up in the traditions of their faith constitutes “brainwashing” at all. Why is it you seem to know what’s best for other people’s children?
<<And will they learn important stuff like evolution, geology, and advanced Physics?>>
Yes. At least they did in the major private high schools in Hawaii where I grew up…Punahou, Iolani, Kamehameha, and Damien. I hate to burst your bubble, but not every Christian is as stupid or ignorant as you would like to believe.
Are they learning it in public schools? Generally not.
<<They insisted that the Statue of Posiedon, which was in the classic Greek style, be “covered” as it was “obscene”- They put pants on him. And you want to give these folks $2000 of my tax money? >>
I see. And the public school system has never tried to ban a book from its shelves? Your anecdote is a red herring.
You say it’s not fair that some of your tax money might go towards a private school you don’t like. Well, it’s not fair that some of the Christian fundamentalist’s tax money is going towards a public school he doesn’t like, etc. etc. ad infinitum. In the end, why should anyone being paying for anyone else’s kids’ education at all? We can donate money to help the parents who can’t afford any of the options, but why force everyone to buy into a system they don’t want to use?
If nothing else, parents should be allowed to credit their school taxes towards private education (up to the amount their children would otherwise be costing the public school). How can that possibly be unfair to you?
1.It’s fair because the majority of voters and the US Constitution MAKE it fair.
2.Because the 1st Admendment says it is unfair to force me to pay to support others Religions.
Most parents do not pay enuf taxes to = what it costs to put their kiddies thru. The rich and the childless subsidize the education for others. Thats why we get to say they get a real education, with stuff like Evolution, and no religion.
That’s even better than “might makes right”, “the majority makes fair!”
**
No, it doesn’t. This same arguement was made against including paying for religious colleges with Montgomery GI Bill money, guess what? You can go to private religious colleges on government money. What you suggest would also make army chaplins and the congresional chaplan unconstitutional.
The first amendment reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
Also, what’s your defention of religion? From Merriam Webster you get “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith” (Discounting defenitions that use the word religous in them, it’s generally viewed as bad practice to have two words used in each others definition) According to this it seems to me that both environmentalism and athiesm should both be considered religions. (And if you don’t like that defenition please give me one that covers monotheism, pantheism, spiritualism, gaeism and other religions, without including “secular” concepts of morality such as kantian ethics.)
**
Yes, there are a very small number of religious zealots who have schools that ignore evolution and teach creationism. This is no more reason to refuse to send a child to any private religious school than what happened at colombine is a reason to refuse to send a child to any public school.
I’ve taken classes at 4 elementary schools (1 Episcopal, 1 Catholic, 1 Public and 1 fundamentalist christian homeschool group) and 4 high schools (3 public and 1 Catholic) and I firmly belive that these private schools were any order of magnitude better than all of the public schools. While a public high school is my second favorite school of the bunch, I can’t rate it highly for several reasons. First it was adult education, and most students were slackers who had dropped out of high school but weren’t 16 yet (or 5th graders who pulled knives on teachers) The classes were also 99% self taugh, so your “average” student wouldn’t do any work. Oh yea, we had a shooting their too…
I really loved it when I was put in Honors Algebra II in my Junior year. After 9 weeks in class we were still reviewing material I had learned in my 6th grade pre-algebra class (that’s when I left that school)
It disgustes my to see our schools like this, and I would also ask my elders to consider that I have first hand experience of what these schools are like now (or at least 1 year ago, I’m 19 and attending FSU now), I’d ask anyone who’s been out of high school for more than ten years to go look at the schools, talk to the teachers and students and see the crap that really goes on.
Wow… that sounds like a pretty bad high school. But look at the problems that you list. They mostly have to do with students. That’s the problem with public funding of private schools. It’s an abandonment issue. It’s not religious, it’s not Consitutional, and it comes down to this:
Kids who are stupid troublemakers will likely always be stupid troublemakers.
But most people have a problem with that. They aren’t willing to admit that there may be stupid troublemakers in their town, neighborhood, street, or even their house. So, we look for a scapegoat. Hey, how about our official substitute parents - the public schools! Now, how do we fix this “problem”? Of course! We don’t admit that, maybe, the minimum wage is so low that one working person can’t support a family. We don’t reach out to make sure that young troublemakers don’t become old troublemakers. Instead, we privatize!
Then, we scare all the smart kids to the private schools by telling them how horrible their old schools are, and how much better private schools will be for them! Then, we point to how the public schools do worse and worse (as we skim their cream away) and blame the teachers! The good teachers quit or are fired, and we end up with a fourth-rate public education system, where only the promising receive a decent education (did I mention that the private schools still get to pick their students?), creating a permanent underclass to do the bidding of the upper class. For low, low wages, of course!
Hey, who came up with this idea? Whoever it was sure had a vested interest in maintaining his or her own wealth and privilege in society.
Actually my favorite of all the public schools I went to had the worst of the students (adult ed), it was the best of all the public schools I went to, but the approach it used to teach wouldn’t be that effective with most students. The standard public high school that I went to was where I took Algebra II, and was still reviewing material I had learned 5 years earlier after 9 weeks. That never would have happened at the adult ed school because it was self paced.
I also must disagree with your statement that kids who are trouble makers will always be trouble makers. We are all products of our environment, and I belive that many public schools contribute to making troublemakers. It’s also true that your life at home has a larger environmental impact than your schooling does, which would account for some of the discrepency I see between public and private schools.
There is also the broken windows theory. This theory doesn’t only apply to the severity of the infractions, but to how many people are doinging them as well. At the regular public high school I went to they had an annoucment saying that the dress code would be strictly enforced everyday for the first several weeks. Despite this, everyday I saw at least a dozen people wearing flip-flops, sandals, tank tops and/or transparent blouses (all of which where specifically mentioned in the announcments and dress code) and I never heard of a single person being repremanded for it. Basicly as long as you weren’t causing physical harm to another student or talking loudly over a teacher, you could do anything you wanted. This attitude definetly did not engender any respect for the school’s administration. I actually had a student doing drugs next to me in class one day, while I’m not 100% sure the teacher noticed, I do think she knew…
It also seems that your statement that troublemakers will likely always be troublemakers could be used to argue that prisoners should be locked up for life…
